Mark Driscoll, 1Timothy, and the Religious Right

I have been dialoguing with a Christian man in regard to 1 Timothy 5, and more particularly, vs. 8. It would seem that a large percentage of evangelicals would have us believe that this verse is communicating an absolute command directed specifically toward those of both the x and y chromosomal make-up. Not only that, but they also assert that this provision is in absolute and strict terms of being the sole source, or primary source, of family income.

Unfortunately, influential pastors such as Mark Driscoll have perpetuated this misinterpretation of 1 Timothy, and many men, specifically stay-at-home fathers, are now being condemned by the disciples of Driscoll.

One Christian man, taking issue with this interpretation, explained how his wife, who has a more stable, eight-year career which earns more, provides the family income while he cares for the children at home. He believed he was efficiently “providing for” his family by coming to a decision, along with his wife, to have her pursue her career to ensure adequate and stable financial provision for the whole family. But according to Driscoll and other such men, this man is essentially “unmanly” and “effeminate” – and worse, he is in sin.

I stand by my conviction that forcing men and women into culturally-defined roles without regard for their circumstances, giftings, or personalities is an ugly form of legalism. I don’t believe it was ever the intention of God that biblical commands and principles be used in a way that would impoverish, oppress, repress, or otherwise afflict people as the Pharisees were so notorious for. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
But there are even better reasons not to subscribe to this interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:8: There is a complete lack of good, solid biblical exegesis in this particular instance.

Looking deeper into the text, what I’ve found is interesting.

There is only one translation that speaks explicitly to men when directing us to care for our own families. The Weymouth New Testament says “But if a man makes no provision for those dependent on him, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is behaving worse than an unbeliever.” All the other translations use the more general ‘ANYONE .’ For example:

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever“(ESV).

And this, for good reason:  In the Greek, the word translated “anyone” is ‘tis,’ which is an enclitic indefinite pronoun. There is no indication whatsoever of this passage relating specifically to men.
And that is not all. 

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. “


Every place that “his” and “he” are being used here are in a general sense. The “his” in “does not provide for his relatives” is an uncertain affinity. It is meant to correspond with the Greek “idios,” which means, “1) pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Thayer’s Greek Definitions).  Every other instance of “he” in this verse is also used in the general sense as well.

If you read the verse in its context, you will soon discover that this verse is actually referring to widows. Yes, it can be applied in a more general sense to apply to any relative or especially those in our own households (and it should!), but the point here is that this exhortation is not directed specifically at men; it is every person’s responsibility to care for each of the needs of each member of the family.  

And to reaffirm this, if you drop down to vs. 18 you will find the apostle urging women specifically to provide for the widows under their care so the church is not overburdened unnecessarily.

Sorry guys, but the directive is not explicitly directed at men in 1 Timothy 5:8. But even if it were, that still does not translate into compelling men to necessarily be the ones to go out and bring home the bacon.

According to Thayers Greek Dictionary, the word “provide” in the verse comes from the Greek ‘pronoeō,’ which means:

1) to perceive before, foresee

2) to provide, think of beforehand

2a) to provide for one

2b) to take thought for, care for a thing

It is related to two words: ‘pro’ (“fore,” that is, in front of, prior to); and ‘noieō’ (1) to perceive with the mind, to understand, to have understanding), and to think upon, heed, ponder, consider).

In Barnes’ commentary, he says of verse 8:

He continues further down:

Funny thing, Dr.Robert Stein echoes the same sentiment as Barnes in his lecture on 1 Timothy 5:8. So even if this verse was speaking explicitly to men, based on the original meanings of the Greek word used, we can be confident that Paul was not necessarily forcing men into the role of being the breadwinner. As it relates to the headship of a husband, one might easily and fairly interpret this command to “provide for” as taking into consideration his family’s income, and taking the impetus on one’s self for making arrangements with his wife to meet the various needs of the dependents, while not necessarily making one's self the sole or primary breadwinner.

Are stay-at-home dads making the arrangements to ensure the financial needs of the family are met? There are inevitably several situational variables to take into account, which is why I'm not exactly sure where we get off having the audacity to pretend we know how best to provide for the family of another man. The unfortunate biblical truth for all of those who would prefer to keep all women financially dependent on men for whatever reason is that it is essentially between the man, his wife, and their God.

And I will sign off now with some old words I typed a few years back when I was once again confronted with the disgusting legalistic religiosity of the religious right in America as they made sure to let a struggling women know just exactly how unbiblical she was to put her children in daycare a couple of times a week to give herself a much-needed break: